Trump's SCOTUS

[Fife]

Somewhere around 100% of that post is fake news.

Sorry, I'm not a lawyer. Can you translate below?

Courts are changing as well; in the small percentage (5 percent) of custody cases that do go to litigation, judges are now more inclined to disregard gender and look at who's the better parent, says Gary Nickelson, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. "

http://www.newsweek.com/divorce-new-rul ... tody-83545

The word "litigation" is all wrong in this context. So wrong, in fact, that it comes across as intentionally misleading. It misled you alright. Replace "litigation" with "trial on the merits as to all issues" and it might be getting closer. Not close enough to get a click out of me onto newsweek.

Litigation starts the day the original complaint is filed, and is part of 100% of divorce cases.

[K@th]

The word "litigation" is all wrong in this context. So wrong, in fact, that it comes across as intentionally misleading. It misled you alright. Replace "litigation" with "trial on the merits as to all issues" and it might be getting closer. Not close enough to get a click out of me onto newsweek.

Litigation starts the day the original complaint is filed, and is part of 100% of divorce cases.

So I need to talk to my two friends who claim they decided the custody arrangement with their ex. In one of these cases, I'm friends with the mother, who decided to give custody to the dad. She sees her kid every other weekend and during the summer.

My friends lied?

When I got divorced, the judge only decided to grant the divorce. All the asset splitting was done between the ex & I.

[Fife]

The word "litigation" is all wrong in this context. So wrong, in fact, that it comes across as intentionally misleading. It misled you alright. Replace "litigation" with "trial on the merits as to all issues" and it might be getting closer. Not close enough to get a click out of me onto newsweek.

Litigation starts the day the original complaint is filed, and is part of 100% of divorce cases.

So I need to talk to my two friends who claim they decided the custody arrangement with their ex. In one of these cases, I'm friends with the mother, who decided to give custody to the dad. She sees her kid every other weekend and during the summer.

My friends lied?

When I got divorced, the judge only decided to grant the divorce. All the asset splitting was done between the ex & I.

Nobody called anybody a liar. Relax. You were just duped by some fake news. Nobody is questioning your anecdotes either. The point is that every case is decided as a piece of litigation, and ends with a judge's signature and the approval of the state as a party to the action.

[K@th]

Nobody called anybody a liar. Relax. You were just duped by some fake news. Nobody is questioning your anecdotes either. The point is that every case is decided as a piece of litigation, and ends with a judge's signature and the approval of the state as a party to the action.

So husband and wife agree he gets custody and judge can say, "no, mother gets custody."

And that's it? Mom has to take child even if she doesn't want to?

[Fife]

It would take some thought to come up with a decent estimate of the number of proposed agreed divorce/custody decrees I've seen handed back unsigned for whatever reason. Somewhere north of 150 at least. Virtually every other agreed decree, which does get approved, has taken into account what is necessary for approval.

You are free to discount, or to leave out, the discretion of the trial judge in these matters if you would like. I can't change reality or how you perceive it for you.

[K@th]

It would take some thought to come up with a decent estimate of the number of proposed agreed divorce/custody decrees I've seen handed back unsigned for whatever reason. Somewhere north of 150 at least. Virtually every other agreed decree, which does get approved, has taken into account what is necessary for approval.

You are free to discount, or to leave out, the discretion of the trial judge in these matters if you would like. I can't change reality or how you perceive it for you.

I have no idea what you are saying. Can you answer yes/no? Judges change the decision made by the parents and award custody to the parent who didn't want custody?

[Fife]

Yes, judges regularly (daily) reject and/or re-write agreed divorce decrees before approval, for all sorts of reasons (some mandatory, some arbitrary, many in-between). All reasonable and responsible agreed decrees are made with such knowledge in the forefront of the discussion.


FFS, I'll be glad when the SCOTUS nominee is named so we can get back on topic.

[K@th]

Yes, judges regularly (daily) reject and/or re-write agreed divorce decrees before approval, for all sorts of reasons (some mandatory, some arbitrary, many in-between). All reasonable and responsible agreed decrees are made with such knowledge in the forefront of the discussion.


FFS, I'll be glad when the SCOTUS nominee is named so we can get back on topic.

Thanks. Another new thing today. I had no idea the judge could force custody unto an unwilling parent.

[Fife]

Yes, judges regularly (daily) reject and/or re-write agreed divorce decrees before approval, for all sorts of reasons (some mandatory, some arbitrary, many in-between). All reasonable and responsible agreed decrees are made with such knowledge in the forefront of the discussion.


FFS, I'll be glad when the SCOTUS nominee is named so we can get back on topic.

Thanks. Another new thing today. I had no idea the judge could force custody unto an unwilling parent.

"Custody" is not really the right term anymore, at least here. Now it's "shared parenting."

Usually when some parent tries to basically avoid all (or enough) "shared parenting" responsibility ("hey, that's what I'm paying the child support for, right--so I can be with my new old lady and her kids?" --plus 10,000 other reasons), judges tell them to fuck off, go home, and come back with something better, or she'll come up with it herself. Of course, it varies wildly from judge to judge. A good lawyer knows the idiosyncrasies of the local judges above all else in crafting and negotiating agreements and preparing for mediation, and trial when necessary.

[K@th]

Usually when some parent tries to basically avoid all (or enough) "shared parenting" responsibility ("hey, that's what I'm paying the child support for, right--so I can be with my new old lady and her kids?" --plus 10,000 other reasons), judges tell them to fuck off, go home, and come back with something better, or she'll come up with it herself. Of course, it varies wildly from judge to judge. A good lawyer knows the idiosyncrasies of the local judges above all else in crafting and negotiating agreements and preparing for mediation, and trial when necessary.

I thought judges were ripping children from their father's arms in 95% of cases. What's this silliness about fathers being required to participate in the parenting.

[/sarcasm]